>Checking in isn't difficult, it doesn't require very much effort from anyone and it's >a relatively robust and structured way for skydivers to look after themselves.

Agreed. It works and we do it all the time. I am still scratching my head as to why some people here are saying "I could never do it; I hope someone else does it for me!" It's easy. Get a manifest and check. If you don't want to do it, then stop complaining.

>Checking in isn't difficult, it doesn't require very much effort from anyone and it's >a relatively robust and structured way for skydivers to look after themselves.

Agreed. It works and we do it all the time. I am still scratching my head as to why some people here are saying "I could never do it; I hope someone else does it for me!" It's easy. Get a manifest and check. If you don't want to do it, then stop complaining.

Because when it isn't a system properly implemented it doesn't work. So you're the one concerned citizen that regularly does it for YOUR load. What happens when it is you that is injured out in the field? Or another load?

What I find ironic is the UK has a system and yet it is the most densely populated, so your least likely to go undiscovered by others.

1. I swore this could never happen until it happened at my home DZ. 2. The FAA has already started to get more involved with the recent landing area proposal and increased aircraft ramp checks (locally in CA anyway). There is more coming if we don't wake up.

Well, the landing area proposal is to address the claims of "safety issues" and traffic conflicts for access fights. And the ramp checks are up (in part) because of a couple high profile situations involving aircraft maintenance.

I don't see the FAA getting too excited for an issue that has happened 3 times in the last 10 years in the US, where a check in wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway, (2 were dead on impact, the one that wasn't had already said "don't look for me, I'm gonna land by my trailer).

Edit to add: I'm not against implementing one, and I make sure everyone in my group makes it back, but I don't see a burning need for this.

Someone does something. The alternative is that no one does anything. Which would you prefer?

It depends on what "someone does something" means (which is why I asked the question).

Does it mean someone broadcasts on the PA system that the missing person needs to check in? I can live with that (though that just begs the question -- what happens if they don't respond to the PA?).

Does it mean that operations shut down until this person is located? I'm not okay with that.

AFAIK in the UK it's standard practice to suspend jump operations until the missing person is accounted for - why add to the problem of a missing jumper by putting more people in the air? I've actually seen it happen - off landing where the canopy snagged a tree, operations stopped until the jumper was recovered and back on the DZ. By that time the weather had worsened so no more jumping.

Does it mean jump ticket prices go up, so the DZ can hire a person specifically to deal with that? I don't think I'd be okay with that, either.

Or does it mean something else?

It really was a genuine question. At my DZ, only jumpers on the sunset load are required to check in after their jump. I have no idea what happens if someone doesn't check in. So I'm curious what the system is, or is proposed to be, for places that require checking in after every jump.

At my home DZ it's as simple as someone on DZ control with a copy of the manifest - they know how many jumpers are on the A/C, they're in radio contact with the pilot who tells them if everyone jumped (or not); they count the canopies as they deploy and count them as they land and check them off on the manifest - so that you know someone's gone astray within 5 minutes or so

USPA reported 3 million jumps last year...how many jumpers are wandering around the dz woods, zombie-like, due to a lack of a check-in system. Zero.

This just seems silly to me.

There's been (I think) three fatalities in the last few years where the person wasn't missed and the body wasn't found for a few days. The one in Houston, the one at Bay Area Skydiving, and this one. This one and the one at BAS were both no-pull fatalities; a check-in system wouldn't have changed the outcome; there was some debate as to whether the guy in Houston could have been helped.

I'm with others who say that it really needs to be incumbent on us to look out for each other. Jumping in a group? Make sure your group is all accounted for post-jump. Jumping solo? Let someone on the load know, and ask 'em to check in with you after the jump. New to the dropzone and jumping solo? Same thing, but you'll have to introduce yourself to someone on the plane first.

you dont have to if every one is looking out for those they jump with (students should be looked out for my instructors). That only leaves the loners to account for, and obviously they have no friends so fuck em.

Sorry... I just get tired of people wanting to make the DZ responsible for everything...

So if DZ's readily fix this problem by implementing a check-in procedure, how is it a DZ doesn't have some responsibility if they don't have such a procedure and someone goes missing?

The DZO IS responsible for everything that happens - or doesn't happen - on his/her DZ.

Of course because no one should have any personal responsibility. It is someone else’s fault.

Of course the deceased is responsible for his own death, right, but he cannot for obvious reasons be responsible for noticing his absence, finding himself, his probably rented rig and notifying his relatives.

That's not at all what I said. Each person and entity in the process has responsibilities, including the DZ.

By personal responsibility I assume you mean that an injured jumper who lands off the DZ should drag his busted femurs or broken back a few hundred yards to the nearest road and flag down help?

If there is a hole in the manifesting/jumper accountability system, exactly who or what besides the DZ is responsible for that?

I am about the biggest "individual responsibility" guy you'll ever know, but an injured jumper who lands off the DZ is at the mercy of the system - or lack thereof.

Is it the responsibility of the DZO or the individual jumper to make sure he won't be laying out in a field with 2 broken legs, with nobody knowing about it?

A few years back, late on a Sunday afternoon, we were closing up. The pilot was taking the plane to a different airport for maintenance, everyone else was packing up. I did a solo H&P from the "departure flight" and asked someone to hang around until I landed, because I wasn't willing to take the risk of getting hurt on landing with nobody there. It was one of those "Murphy" things where if I was alone, I would have been laying there until the pilot got back, but by asking someone to stay, I had a perfect landing.

At a buzy DZ, where a solo could get lost in the shuffle, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be someone willing to be that sort of "Check In" person.

But it would be up to the individual jumper to say something like "hey, I'm doing a solo. If I don't check in with you after the load lands, come look for me."

I dont really want to go in to speculation here.... but what if the guy/girl tries to kill him or her self (something the authorities in the dutch accident do not exclude as posability, and in all fairness in the facts known about the accident point to...)

I think there should be a general concern where you do not let people rot for nine days in a field... even if they didnt take responsibility for being accounted for post jump (or saving their own ass) ...

checking out from the DZ vs Checking out from the jump, there is a big difference... mind you..

On the other hand, I see this as an opportunity to realize we need to look out for one another (not more, but just do)... no system is foolproof... I have looked at my own observational capabilities and concluded to try to be a lot more aware and forthcoming of my observations.... ofcourse you can not check an entire load, but at least the people in front of you and behind you...(right?)

Ofcourse, responsablity is something diffrent but seeing that we have a general concern this is something we shoud do, and promote!

please people, be safe! And don't count on the guy with the binoculars to safe your ass or not let you rot in a field for nine days...(again not starting a menhunt, but facts are facts, and you are resposible for your own actions vs our general interesst in to not letting this happen)

The flaw in your system is that a new or visiting jumper may not know who is a responsible person to ask. If the person you asks forgets or most likely assumes that you're ok and does nothing you are stuffed.

We tend to make the assumption that someone is ok, and left without telling us, or something similar rather than that they are hurt. Couple of weeks ago I was atthe dz when a jumper called an hour or two after operations had stopped. They had left their credit card at manifest, and wanted it kept safe for the week. The.point is that everyone closed up "assuming" that was the case. There was no check made prior to find the missing person.

Just remember it is the dz that has the most to lose. Bad publicity can ruin a business. Individual responsibility comes in the form of checking in promptly and making you sure you don't waste peoples time.

I think there is an important distinction between someone who goes in without a main or reserve out (as appears to be the case here, and as was the case in the other notorious fatalities like it), and someone landing out under at least a partial that might be survivable. In the former case, unless they impact on the LZ, they likely will go unnoticed, but no accounting/check-in system is going to change the outcome. (At best, it will allow an early start to the search for the body.)

Where it might be beneficial is in the latter case. But here, the fact that they are landing off is more likely be noticed by other jumpers and casual spectators on the ground, particularly if something seemed unusual (like a spinning mal, or a drifting canopy flight heading away from the DZ). Have there been enough such incidents in the past (i.e., landing injured away from the DZ, but no one noticed) to justify the cost of putting in a system (and the cost of false alarms)?

I think there is an important distinction between someone who goes in without a main or reserve out (as appears to be the case here, and as was the case in the other notorious fatalities like it), and someone landing out under at least a partial that might be survivable. In the former case, unless they impact on the LZ, they likely will go unnoticed, but no accounting/check-in system is going to change the outcome. (At best, it will allow an early start to the search for the body.)

Where it might be beneficial is in the latter case. But here, the fact that they are landing off is more likely be noticed by other jumpers and casual spectators on the ground, particularly if something seemed unusual (like a spinning mal, or a drifting canopy flight heading away from the DZ). Have there been enough such incidents in the past (i.e., landing injured away from the DZ, but no one noticed) to justify the cost of putting in a system (and the cost of false alarms)?

That's over-think gone overboard.

Hindsight is perfect, so of course it would be easy to determine whether a check-in system made a difference in any particular situation after the fact.

The scenarios are infinite. The constant is the need to make sure everyone on the load makes it home.

If a DZO wants or has a check in system, great, all the better. But it's still my responsibility 100% to lookout for myself and others firstly. I'd use a DZOs check in as a back up, people on the jump run can figure out something's wrong faster.

The check-in is for the DZ. It's their cue to go looking for your broken, responsible self.

And nobody remembers the search for Billy Vance better than CSpencefly at the St Patrick's boogie. I had landed just off the other end of the pond and walked back, but forgot to check in. Somebody got sent out there yelling "BILLY VANCE!" in the woods.